Public Spaces
Turn the Porter-Klingle interchange into a park
The Klingle Valley trail project is focusing on building a trail, but it's also a great opportunity to reexamine the giant interchange to nowhere in the middle of Rock Creek parkland.
This interchange is massively overbuilt today. It was designed to shuffle cars between Porter Street, Beach Drive, and the now-nonexistent Klingle Road to the west. From satellite photos, it looks like a giant gash in an otherwise leafy expanse of parkland:
Porter Street is the visible road from the northwest to the southeast, while Beach Drive just appears as a dark line through the trees. Where the access road intersects busy Beach Drive, there is just a basic T-junction. That road then continues to Porter, but instead of a similarly-sized T-junction, we have six large ramps and two underpasses.
The current plan has the trail using part of the southernmost roadway (marked in green above) until it joins the Rock Creek trail. The roadway will remain open to cars for drivers coming from the handful of houses to the west.
But since no through traffic continues to the west, we shouldn't need this whole mess. Beach Drive gets by with a much simpler intersection. Why not turn the intersection of Porter and the road to Beach Drive into a regular T-junction as well? It could look something like this:
The road and underpass along the south (in green) would become a bicycles and pedestrian path only. The road and underpass in the north could become two-way for the cars going to the few houses on Klingle. The road that intersects Porter is already two-way, and cars heading east on Porter already turn across the intersection at grade to get to it.
The only change to traffic would be to have cars from that road going to Porter eastbound also turn across the intersection instead of looping under and back around. A stoplight could regulate those turns. Since the bottleneck on Porter is currently at the stoplights on either end, the small amount of delay from this extra movement shouldn't reduce the overall capacity of Porter Street. DDOT should certainly check that, however.
This change turns a lot of the land into usable park space. An even better arrangement would be to move that street toward the north, near the northern underpass. That would free up even more contiguous parkland by making all traffic to and from Beach Drive and the Klingle houses use the northern edge of the clearing, reserving the rest for recreation.
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Suitland Parkway Trail is a mess. Will leaders seek change?









by Aaron on Dec 21, 2009 2:45 pm • link • report
by Lou on Dec 21, 2009 4:27 pm • link • report
~13 years ago the city, at great expense rebuilds this intersection to its current configuration to accommodate the volume of traffic that had been using, and at that point projected to use Klingle when it was reopened.
Now, you want to spend another ~million dollars digging up practically new roads and associated drainage systems and reconfiguring this intersection all to gain the equivalent of what... a quarter of an acre of green space back?
The largest argument that actually had traction, that the Sierra club and the half a dozen people who owned property adjacent to the road gave for not reopening Klingle was the cost involved. That the city was in no financial position to spend the money and it would be cheaper to just build the bike path.
Yet, we've seen since that to fulfill all basic requirements that the hiker/biker be built to accommodate emergency vehicles, and accommodate the existing sanitary and future storm drain systems, that the biker/hiker trail would be nearly as expensive as rebuilding the road. Now we want to eclipse the cost to rebuild the road by spending more money tearing out practically brand new and unused roadways built to accommodate the traffic from Klingle?
What is it folks? We either have the money or we don't.
by nookie on Dec 21, 2009 6:28 pm • link • report
by Lance on Dec 21, 2009 8:54 pm • link • report
As for the intersection, an easier and cheaper option (especially since the District claims a budget deficit these days) would be to simply keep the existing underpasses and realign the ramp coming from westbound Porter into a 2-lane/2-way intersection...with or without a roundabout at Porter....when this topic got brought up earlier in the year, I suggested the roundabout, and I still am.
by Froggie on Dec 21, 2009 10:24 pm • link • report
by Thayer-D on Dec 22, 2009 7:13 am • link • report
by Bianchi on Dec 22, 2009 11:54 am • link • report
by Doug on Dec 23, 2009 1:27 pm • link • report
Add a Comment